No experience with the "baby" Mosley, but I have had and used the same full size TA-33 for 40 years. No problems, only minor maintenance when changing QTHs. So I figure the little guy will work well, too, and for a long time.

No experience with the "baby" Mosley, but I have had and used the same full size TA-33 for 40 years. No problems, only minor maintenance when changing QTHs. So I figure the little guy will work well, too, and for a long time.

KF7CG

BIG difference between a full sized Mosley TA 33 and the Mosley Mini 33 WARC.The TA 33 is a good antenna, but the Mini 33 was not one of Mosley's better moments.Yes, because it is a Mosley, it will last a long long time. That is unfortunate, because it's poor performance will survive long enough to effect Ham after Ham.The Cush Craft MA 5B is a better antenna, and a Hex Beam even better yet.

Not one person has given me a technical reason why the cushcraft is better than the Mosley mini other than its better.

Good Lord Mike, don't you read and compare ?The MA5B has almost perfect EHam reviews, the Mosley does not, The MA5B has a 7.3ft boom, the Mosley has a 6 ft boom.The Cush Craft has a superior loading scheme for the elements, and is a newer antenna.This mean it has benefited from Computer Design, vs the primitive, old school Mosley.

Look at all the videos on YouTube about the MA5B, then try to find any about the Mosley Mini 33 ?

Even Steve Hunt, the designer of the K4KIO and NA4RR Hexbeams once owned the MA5B, and said it was a decent antenna.

I am beginning to think that if Jesus Christ appeared in person, at your door, you would want to see the holes in his hands, from being nailed to the Cross ?

Everything I have read about each antenna has just praised what they had. The Mosley antenna is old school but proven. Personally the matching network and accompanied traps coupled with shorter elements should provide far more loss and less gain. The longer boom may prove better f/b but it should be minmal. So I guess I am try to better understand if my understanding of the science is correct than why is the antenna better? Maybe better advertising? If I am wrong about my understanding of the science then correct me with fact not conjecture or just what other people say.

Everything I have read about each antenna has just praised what they had. The Mosley antenna is old school but proven. Personally the matching network and accompanied traps coupled with shorter elements should provide far more loss and less gain. The longer boom may prove better f/b but it should be minmal. So I guess I am try to better understand if my understanding of the science is correct than why is the antenna better? Maybe better advertising? If I am wrong about my understanding of the science then correct me with fact not conjecture or just what other people say.

All things being equal Mike, the Gain of a Yagi is a function of boom length. A "full size" small tribander has a 14 ft boom, and even that is close spaced on 20 meters!

Most 10 meter 3 element beams have from an 8 to a 12 ft boom.

The Mosley has a 6 ft boom, not enough for even good 10 meter performance, let alone 15 and 20!

Ahhaha! That is the type of explanation I have been looking for. I am a relatively new ham and still learning.

Here are the technical differences for those who are not familiar with the antennas. Hopefully one of you elmers can help me choose a mini based on scientific fact over just conjecture. I am mostly interested in 10, 15 and 20m with 20m being my favorite most used band. WARC is nice to have at this point. I need a mini due to my QTH and a Hex Beam is just not going to work for the XYL.

OK, why do you think the Mosley is the better antenna ?It has a shorter boom, and no matching device!The highest gain, bandwidth, and front to back ratio of a Yagi Antenna seldom, if ever, occurs when the driven element is a perfect 52 ohm match for direct coaxial fed.

Mike, First off its time for you to put down on paper what your requirements are and the weight them for what you think your needs are. With the information that you have on this post you should be able to make a very well rounded decision on the antenna that will work well for your need. I had most of the information that is on this post when I ordered the MQ-26 an have been very happy with the antenna, it met and exceeded my needs, had a friend that has worked most if not all countries in the world come over to the QTH an checked it the MQ-26 out, his first words after running some checks were it works very well indeed for a mini beam. The MQ-26 has gain on the WARC bands over the MA5B an that was important for me, I know after using the MQ-26 for 7+ months its true because about 90% of the time I hear both sides of all QSO or 17m. With the other antennas I have used before. I did not an its the quitest antenna that I have, an that's good enough enough for me ............KB6HRT

Hi Mike, if you can find one used the F12 C3SS would knock the sock's off those two antenna's buy a huge margin. 17&12mtr's will cover well with most AT's built in rig's today but only as good as a dipole but 10/15&20 it's a real beam, no trap's and it out does some larger trapped tribander's, longest element is 24' and a 12' boom, about 27 pounds so the light duty Yaesu rotor will work real well. Those other mini beam's are a step up from a dipole with some FB but low gain, I know they spec around 3 dbd but you would be luck to get maybe 2 dbd on 10&15 and maybe like a dipole on 20. If there is any gain at all its gain/bandwidth is gonna be 20-30khz, yes they show some for of directivity but they have very poor efficiency.Jim KE2TR

Either is suitable for 100 watts ssb, but probably not for use with an amplifier. I have a friend who burned up the traps on an MA5B with an Ameritron AL-811H. So consider that neither of these is suitable for amplifier use in the long term. He liked it well enough before it caught fire.

Copyright 2000-2017 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement